STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION IN CAD

SOFTWARE
Nenad MARJANOVIC
Biserka ISAILOVIC
Mirko BLAGOJEVIC

Abstract: In this paper one way of integrating structural

optimization and CAD tools is presented. Structural
optimization is an automated synthesis of a mechanical
component based on structural properties. In the first part
of this paper two methods of CAD based optimization are
described. After that three types of structural optimization
are elaborated. Integrated structural optimization as
method proper for structural optimization in concrete
CAD software is particularly described.
As illustration of suggested approach optimization of
bracket clamped on the left side and saddled on right side
by the vertical force is performed. Modeling, FEM
analysis and optimization is performed using different
workbenches in PLM software CATIA V5. Optimization
results indicate improvement of objective function value
of over 60 percent.
Proposed approach is designer oriented. The designer is
fully involved in optimization process, as well as in design
process. This approach assures practical implementation
of optimization results.
Key words: Optimization, CAD, FEM

1. INTRODUCTION
Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools become very
popular and common within engineering and design
departments. They considerably facilitate the designer
work and some of them even offers powerful calculation
function using Finite Element Method (FEM). However,
there is still a lack of CAD tools that give the opportunity
to proceed to optimization calculations. This is a bit
surprising that a major concern for most manufacturers is
optimization of a product before its launching. New
competitive products must meet the growing demands of
the market. They must be light-weighted, resourceefficient, durable, stable, etc. At the same time, the
product must be introduced quickly into the market.
These demands can only be met if optimization tools are

used in addition to establish CAD, CAE, DMU and/or

PLM systems. Calculation of different product variants
and improvements can be carried out on digital prototype
at a very early project stage. Then, the number of required
prototypes can be reduced which results in probable time
and cost savings. The functionality, the handling and
especially the integration and combination with other
tools of the virtual product development process are of
decisive importance. So far, the optimization tools have
not been completely integrated in the design process.
Among the few existing products that offer optimization
capabilities for design, some of them propose to optimize
a structure by using FEM. This roughly means that FEM
calculations are performed at each of iterations of the
optimization process in order to optimize the static or
dynamic behaviour of the studied system.
Optimization of mechanical systems is very difficult task
because of very complex mathematical model which have
to describe operating of real system in real circumstances.
CAD based optimization can be performed using stand
alone optimization or CAD imbedded optimization.
Typical examples of stand-alone optimization are given in
[1, 2] on gear train optimization sample. Some other
optimization examples of concrete mechanical systems
are presented in [3, 4, 5 and 6].
In reference [7] parameter - based topology optimization
is given. The basic of the optimization approach, which is
presented in this paper, is bubble method. The strategy of
this method is an alternation of shape optimization and
positioning of additional holes (bubbles).
Three dimensional structural optimization is described in
[8]. This paper presents an automated process for
interpreting three-dimensional topology optimization
result into a smooth CAD representation. A tuning
process is employed before the interpretation process to
improve the quality of the topology optimization result.
Paper [9] considers isogeometric structural shape
optimization as special case of shape optimization.
Extensive mathematical optimization engine is applied on
relatively simply practical problem.
Paper [10] presents a new approach to topology
optimization based on implicit functions. The implicit
functions are approximated by the same mesh and shape
functions that are used for the solution of equilibrium
equation.
A web based interface for topology optimization program
is presented in [11]. The paper discusses implementation
issues and educational aspects as well as statistics and
experience with the program.
Paper [12] presents advanced solution methods in
topology optimization and shape sensitive analysis.
Topology optimization is usually employed first, in order
to avoid local optima due to a crude initial layout,
followed by shape optimization in order to fine tune the
optimum layout.
Beside foregoing there is large number of references in
area of structural optimization but mostly they consider
special methods and software for stand-alone structural
optimization.
Number and actuality of published research indicates
importance and contemporarity of structural optimization
topics.
27

2. GENERAL APPROACH TO CAD BASED

OPTIMIZATION
Optimization is a mathematical technique for minimizing
or maximizing a objective function while satisfying the
constraints, or:

Optimize
subject to
and

Weaknesses of this approach are that (1) only few PLM

commercial software has optimization module and (2)
possibilities of their optimization modules are limited.
Initial Design
CAD model

f ( x)
g ( x ) 0, i = 1, ..., m
i
h ( x ) = 0, j = 1, ..., l
j

Optimization
Model

(1)

Optimization requires definition of design variables (x),

objective function f ( x ) , and constraints functions

Optimization
Engine

g i ( x ) and/or h j ( x ) .

The functions in pervious mathematical model can be any

property of a product. Designers are almost never capable
of foreseeing all design options in a product. Optimization
can often find surprising or interesting solution that
designer would not have thought of.
CAD based optimization can be performed using two
methods. The first method is stand alone optimization and
the second is CAD imbedded optimization.

2.1. Stand alone optimization

Stand alone optimization considers CAD independent
optimization engine (software). In this case it is necessary
to create link between CAD model and optimization
model. This link can be established by using design
variables. Optimization can be done only once and any
change in CAD model mean repetition of entire
optimization process. This optimization approach is
shown in Figure 1.

Initial Design
CAD model
Link
Optimization
Model
Optimization
Engine
Link
Optimal Design
CAD model
Fig.1. Stand alone optimization

2.2. Imbedded optimization

Imbedded optimization has an optimization engine
integrated in CAD (PLM) software. A link between CAD
and optimization model exists. It is easy to perform
optimization even when changes are made in CAD model.
This approach is design oriented. This optimization
approach is shown in Figure 2.
28

Re Design

Optimal Design
CAD model

Fig.2. Imbedded optimization

3. STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION
Structural optimization is defined as an automated
synthesis of a mechanical component based on structural
properties, or as a method that automatically generates a
mechanical component design that exhibits optimal
structural performance. Structural optimization always
considers some kind of stress and/or deformation analysis,
which is performed using CAE (Computer Aided
Engineering) tools.
There are two kinds of CAE. The first kind is Mechanical
CAE (MCAE) which involves structures (linear and
nonlinear), explicit FEA (forming, crash, simulation), and
multi-body dynamics (simulation). Second kind is fluid
CAE (FCAE) which involves heat transfer/ conduction,
Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluid flow, and mold flow
simulation.
Three types of CAE software exists stand alone, CAD
linked and CAD imbedded CAE. Characteristics of stand
alone CAE are standard FEA based CAE codes, special
analysts oriented high accuracy, and independent CAD
and pre-processing. CAD linked CAE is present trend; it
involves automatic mesh generation methods. CAD
imbedded CAE is design oriented approach.
Structural optimization is divided into size, shape and
topology optimization.

3.1. Size optimization

Size optimization involves a modification of the cross
section or thickness of finite elements. The optimization
is carried out by mathematical optimization algorithms
with different objective functions e. g. maximum stiffness
or minimum weight. Many programming approaches
were tested and implemented in finite element programs
or special optimization programs. Due to the easy
sensitivity calculation of for size optimization even
realistic problems can be handled. It is the simplest
method and it is applied to the design of truss structures.
Figure 3 illustrates this type of structural optimization.

optimized design proposal for a given space. Figure 5

illustrates this type of structural optimization.

Shape and topology are

given.
Optimize dimensions and
cross sections.

Optimize topology.

Fig.3. Size optimization

Fig.5. Topology optimization

3.2. Shape optimization

Compared to size optimization, shape optimization is
more complex. The coordinates of the surface are
regarded as design variables which will be modified
during the optimization. Surface modification is also used
to reduce stress peaks found in a design proposal. The
resulting component shape is optimally adjusted to the
strains resulting from the specified loads and boundary
conditions. Thus the reliability and life of a component
can be increased. The main difficulty with shape
optimization is to transfer the surface changes to the finite
element mesh. Only a few programs are capable of such a
transfer without destroying the element topology. In this
case design variables control the shape. There are various
approaches to represent the shape. Figure 4 illustrates this
type of structural optimization.

Topology is given.
Optimize boundary shape.

Fig.4. Shape optimization

3.3. Topology optimization

Before using a size or shape optimization, an initial
design proposal has to be available. In the planning phase,
a fundamental structure of the object can be found using
topology optimization. Starting from known loads and
boundary conditions and the maximum available design
space, a design concept can be found which is as light as
possible while meeting all requirements on, e.g., stiffness
and durability. Areas that are not needed are removed
from the design space. The new structure indicates the
optimal energy flow. The result of the topology
optimization serves as a design draft for the creation of a
new FE model for the subsequent simulation calculation
and shape optimization. This method provides the
designer and the development engineer, even in the early
planning stage, a tool capable of creating a weight-

3.4. Integrated structural optimization

Shape optimization is characterized by small number of
design variables, smooth definite results and unchanged
topology remains (cannot make holes in design domain).
On the other hand, topology optimization is characterized
by extremely large number of design variables, non
smooth indefinite results, and intermediate densities
between void and full material, so optimization results, in
this case, may be unrealistic.
Because of these properties of two different types of
optimization and characteristics of optimization modules
in CAD software, it is rationally to integrate shape
optimization and topology optimization. In this approach
the designer decides the initial shape for shape
optimization interactively with results on the topology
optimization.
Integrated structural optimization can be done throughout
three-phase design process: (1) generate information
about the optimal topology, (2) process and interpret the
topology information, and (3) create a parametric model
and apply standard optimization.
Characteristics of the integrated approach are the
following: (1) communications between shape and
topology optimization are not easy, (2) the designer must
provide many control parameters for optimization because
the optimal solutions highly depend on the user defined
parameters and (3) computation is very expensive.
The main benefit of this approach is that designer is fully
involved in optimization process, so optimal solutions can
be practical.

4. INTEGRATED OPTIMIZATION OF TRUSS

STRUCTURES IN PLM SOFTWARE
CATIA
CATIA is a 3D Product Lifecycle Management software
suite, which supports multiple stages of product
development (CAx), from conceptualization, design
(CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and analysis (CAE). Catia
V5 features a parametric solid/surface-based package
which uses NURBS as the core surface representation and
has several workbenches that provide KBE (Knowledgebased engineering) support.
The bracket which is clamped on the left side and saddled
on right side by the vertical force of 7000 N was used as
example for truss structure optimization. CAD model of
29

the bracket was made in the Part and Sketcher

workbenches in CATIA and it is shown in Figure 6.

objective function in this case was 114584,458 mm3 .

Apperance of Von Mises stresses is shown in Figure 10.

Fig.6. CAD model of bracket

The Optimization was performed in Product Function
Optimization workbench. The aim of optimization was
minimization of volume of bracket. In the first case
design variable was height of bracket. Constraints were
maximum value of Von Mises stress (250 MPa), as well
as implicit constraint of design variable. Values of Von
Mises stresses were obtained using Generative Structural
Analysis workbench and are shown in Figure 7.

Fig.9. Shape of the bracket defined by B-Spline

Fig.10. Von Mises stresses Shape optimization

From Figure 10. it is obviously that the inner part of the
bracket is at low stress, so materail can be removed from
that area.
In the next step, integrated optimization was performed
combining topology and shape optimization. In the first
case the inner hole was defined by B-Spline with nine
control points (Figure 11).
Fig.7. Von Mises stresses Size optimization Case I
Optimal value of objective function in this case was
164486,962 mm3 .
In the second case, the similar optimization model was
used, with two design variables. Optimal value of
objective function in this case was 126532,280 mm3 .
Apperance of Von Mises stresses is shown in Figure 8.

Fig.8. Von Mises stresses Size optimization Case II

Two previous cases are tipical samples of size
optimization.
After size optimization, shape optimization was
performed. Shape of the bracket was defined by BSpline, which is shown in Figure 9. Optimal value of
30

Fig.11. Inner hole defined by B-Spline

Optimal value of objective function in this case was

80645,354 mm3 . Apperance of Von Mises stresses is

shown in Figure 13. Better control of shape can be done

by using more control points. In that case optimization
model becomes more complex, and computational time
and effort becomes enormous. Furthermore, changes of
design vairables during optimization process can produce
anomalous shape of inner hole. In some cases inner
contour can interrupt themself or outer contour. Then
stress distribution becomes abnormal and huge stress
concetration appears in some points. That rapid stress
growth causes significant violation of constrain in
optimization model and optimization process can fall
down. This weakness can be avoided by including new
implicit constraints on design variables, thus optimization
model becomes more and more complex.

Fig.14. Von Mises stresses Integrated optimization

Case I
Reduction of objective function values, for diferent
optimization cases is shown in Figure 15.
Objective
function value
[ mm3 ]

Objective
function
reduction [%]

164486,962

Fig.12. Von Mises stresses Integrated optimization

Case I

126532,280

23,07

In the second case of integrated optimization inner hole

was defined by the triangle whose sides are parallel to
outer sides of bracket. Corners of triangle are rounded
because of stress concetration (Figure 13).

114584,458

30,33

80645,354

50,97

67591,169

58,91

Optimization
case

1.8E+05

Fig.13. Inner hole defined by triangle

Optimal value of objective function in this case was
67591,169 mm3 . Apperance of Von Mises stresses is
shown in Figure 14.
Optimization results show successive improvement of
objective function values i. e. decrease of bracket volume.
Through five stages of optimization, initial optimal
bracket volume value of 164486,962 mm3 decreases to
67591,169 mm3 , or about 60 percent.

Objective function

1.6E+05
1.4E+05
1.2E+05
1.0E+05
8.0E+04
6.0E+04
4.0E+04
2.0E+04
0.0E+00
1

Optimization case
Fig.15. Objective function values for different
optimization cases
31

5. CONCLUSION
In this paper one way of integrating structural
optimization and CAD tools is presented. Structural
optimization is an automated synthesis of a mechanical
component based on structural properties. In the first part
of this paper two methods of CAD based optimization are
described. Imbedded optimization has an optimization
engine integrated in CAD (PLM) software. Stand alone
optimization considers CAD independent optimization
engine (software).
Structural optimization is defined as an automated
synthesis of a mechanical component based on structural
properties, or as a method that automatically generates a
mechanical component design that exhibits optimal
structural performance. Structural optimization always
considers some kind of stress and/or deformation analysis,
which is performed using CAE (Computer Aided
Engineering) tools. Three types of structural optimization
are elaborated. Integrated structural optimization as
method proper for structural optimization in concrete
CAD software is particularly described.
As illustration of suggested approach optimization of
bracket clamped on the left side and saddled on right side
by the vertical force is performed. Modeling, FEM
analysis and optimization are performed using different
workbenches in PLM software CATIA V5. Optimization
results indicate improvement of objective function value
of about 60 percent.
Proposed approach is designer oriented. The designer is
fully involved in optimization process, as well as in
design process. This approach assures practical
implementation of optimization results.

[7] SCHUMACHER A., Parameter-based optimization

for crashworthiness structures, 6th World Congresses
of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Rio
de Janeiro, June 2005., Brazil, pp. 1 10.
[8] MING H., H., YEH L. H., Interpreting threedimensional structural topology optimization results,
Computer and Structures, 83 (2005), pp. 327 337.
[9] WALL A. W, FRENCEL M. A, Cyron C.,
Isogeometric structural shape optimization, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 197
(2008), pp. 2976 2988.
[10] BELYTSCHKO T., XIAO S. P., PARTIMI C.,
Topology optimization with implicit function and
regularization, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 2003., 57, pp. 1177 1196.
[11] TCHERNIAK D., SIGMUND O, A web-based
topology optimization program, Structural Multidis.
Optim., 22, 2001., pp. 179. 187.
[12] PAPADRAKAKIS
M.,
TSOMPANIKIS
Y.,
Advanced solution methods in topology optimization
and shape sensitivity analysis, Engineering
Computations, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1996., pp 57 90.

REFERENCES
CORRESPONDENCE
[1] MARJANOVIC N., Optimization of gear trains with
fixed axis position, Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering in Kragujevac, Kragujevac,
1987.
[2] MARJANOVIC N., Gear Trains Optimization,
monograph, CADLab, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Kragujevac, 2007.
[3] BOJIC M., STOJANOVIC D., JEVTOVIC D.,
MARJANOVIC N, Optimization of an Energy
System Having a Ondensung Turbine with Stream
Exstraction, International Syposium of Tremotehnics,
Thermal Machines and Road Vehicles, Timosoara,
1996., pp. 45 50.,
[4] MARJANOVIC N., JOVICIC S. NOVAKOVIC LJ.
Multicriterion Optimization of Complex Technical
Systems on Gear Power Train Example, XXIII
Simposium on Operational Researsch, Zlatibor,
1996. pp. 885 888
[5] MARJANOVIC N., NIKOLIC V., Appliance of
Complex Method on Gear Trains Optimization, I
Interanational Symposiom Industrial Engineering,
SIE`96, Belgrade, 1996., pp. 495 - 497
[6] MARJANOVIC N., Computer Aided Choice of
Optimal Concept of Gear Trains, V Sever Symposium
on Mechanical Trains, Subotica, 1995., pp 113 118.
32

Nenad MARJANOVIC,
Prof. D.Sc. Eng.
University of Kragujevac
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in
Kragujevac
S. Janjic street, 6
34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
nesam@kg.ac.rs
Biserka ISAILOVIC, B.Sc., Eng.
Car factory ZASTAVA
AUTOMOBILI
Profit center Zastitna radionica
4 Trg topolivaca, 34000 Kragujevac,
Serbia
b.isailovic@gmail.com
Mirko BLAGOJEVIC,
Assist. Prof. D.Sc., Eng.
University of Kragujevac
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in
Kragujevac
S. Janjic street, 6
34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
mirkob@kg.ac.rs